KM Approaches, Components, and Specialties #discussion-starter #KM101 #strategy #maturity


Stan Garfield
 

If you are involved in planning a new knowledge management initiative, which KM approach or component do you think is the most important with which to start?  Why?

If you are part of an existing knowledge management program, which KM approach or component do you think is the most essential to the program's success?  Why?

Which KM specialty do you consider to be your main one?  Which one(s) would you like to develop or improve, and why?

Thanks for your replies!


 

Hi Stan

 

Most important:  Understanding the outcomes you desire from your investment in KM and then understanding the business and operational environment and the KM  environment that exists in the organization.

 

Continuing success: KM Leadership—not a position but a role

 

Main specialty: KM Strategy and Implementation

 

Improve: Knowledge Technology development and implementation

 

Best

 

Bill

 

  

 

Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com

 

 

 

From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Stan Garfield via Groups.Io
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 05:30
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: [SIKM] KM Approaches, Components, and Specialties #discussion-starter

 

If you are involved in planning a new knowledge management initiative, which KM approach or component do you think is the most important with which to start?  Why?

If you are part of an existing knowledge management program, which KM approach or component do you think is the most essential to the program's success?  Why?

Which KM specialty do you consider to be your main one?  Which one(s) would you like to develop or improve, and why?

Thanks for your replies!


Douglas Weidner
 

Hi Stan.

I no longer hold a traditional KM position - was a Chief K Engineer in the early days of KM, but now I head the KM Institute's curriculum development as Chief CKM Instructor.

Over the last 20 yrs., 10,000 students and much research, I've come to fully realize that KM is no longer ad hoc and anecdotal, though many still operate that way.

As to approach - Whether starting a new KM initiative or re-booting a flagging one, I strongly suggest transformational change mgmt vs. the traditional system implementation approaches, which themselves are often overlooked or short changed. 

The traditional people/process/technology venn diagram can be instructive, but we are usually already technology rich (or can buy what we need), and could be process rich as well (if we cared to study the emerging research). But mostly, we are truly ignoring the people component, hence transformational change mgmt. to change not only employee aptitudes (traditional skill training) but maybe even more importantly - attitudes

But attitudes is worthy of a book or more. 

By the way, the KM Institute (KMI) is inaugurating the KMI Press for any budding authors in the KM sphere.

Cheers,
Douglas Weidner.
Founder, Exec Chairman

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 8:29 AM Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:
If you are involved in planning a new knowledge management initiative, which KM approach or component do you think is the most important with which to start?  Why?

If you are part of an existing knowledge management program, which KM approach or component do you think is the most essential to the program's success?  Why?

Which KM specialty do you consider to be your main one?  Which one(s) would you like to develop or improve, and why?

Thanks for your replies!


 

Hey Stan - I read through the list of 100 specialities and 50 components and was surprised that Knowledge Strategy was not among them. .

Successful KM initiatives are those that address a business challenge or opportunity in a way that adds value - notably, increases productivity, reduces cost, or drives revenue. Creating a knowledge strategy is a way to increase the odds that success is achieved. If that isn’t done, how do we know we’re solving the right problem? How does a potential client know that the consultant selling them Narrative Design or Content Management isn’t really just pitching the only tool they have in their kit? 

So I’m going with speciality #101, Knowledge Strategy, as my main one for initiating any KM-related project.  After 20 years of practice, I would contend that there is really only one place to start the planning of a new KM initiative, and that is with the creation of a Knowledge Strategy.

A knowledge strategy includes identifying a business need, gap or opportunity, identifying and evaluating various ways to address it, and then laying out the specific approaches, methods and tools to be implemented. 

I’ve seen countless instances of companies bringing in consultants to solve the wrong problem, resulting in lots of wasted time and energy, and leaving a bad taste in everyone’s mouth about KM if that was the banner under which said flailing was done. 

In my opinion, we as practitioners should be like family practice doctors - we should be pretty familiar with most, if not all, of the maladies which our available KM toolset is capable of addressing; and equally familiar with all of the known available KM tools. It is only in this way that we can go in as true consultants and honestly assess a given situation without bias and develop a solution that has the highest probability of success. Otherwise there is a great risk of falling into the hammer looking for a nail trap. 

Successful KM initiatives are those that address a business challenge or opportunity in a way that adds value - notably, increases productivity, reduces cost, or drives revenue. Creating a knowledge strategy is a way to increase the odds that success is achieved. 

Best,
Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Nirmala Palaniappan
 

Great questions, Stan. Here are my responses. 

If you are involved in planning a new knowledge management initiative, which KM approach or component do you think is the most important with which to start?  Why?
  
I think this purely depends on the organization/environment that we happen to be working in. The business objectives, challenges and culture determines what one must focus on.
In most cases I am aware of, culture, change management, content management and collaboration may score high. This presentation I made several years ago proposes a metaphorical perspective - https://www.slideshare.net/nimmypal/types-of-km-strategies  

If you are part of an existing knowledge management program, which KM approach or component do you think is the most essential to the program's success?  Why?
  I think culture and change management are critical for initiatives to be sustainable.

Which KM specialty do you consider to be your main one?  Which one(s) would you like to develop or improve, and why?  
I have had plenty of opportunities to work on culture, change management (via branding, policies, advertising, incentives, performance assessments etc) and also on technology design and development/support. I'd like to work more on process re-engineering and enhancement. I love to study and enhance processes but most organizations' business leaders are possessive about processes and are not likely to hand them over to KMers for refinement. 

Regards
Nirmala 


On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 18:59, Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:
If you are involved in planning a new knowledge management initiative, which KM approach or component do you think is the most important with which to start?  Why?

If you are part of an existing knowledge management program, which KM approach or component do you think is the most essential to the program's success?  Why?

Which KM specialty do you consider to be your main one?  Which one(s) would you like to develop or improve, and why?

Thanks for your replies!



--
"The faithful see the invisible, believe the incredible and then receive the impossible" - Anonymous


T J Elliott
 

These are such interesting questions. Thanks for prompting us to participate in this exercise, Stan.

If you are involved in planning a new knowledge management initiative, which KM approach or component do you think is the most important with which to start?  Why?

The developmental stage of the requestor is for me the most important place to start. I need to know how he or she is doing the world. I particularly want to understand whether the requester can step back from the reality of their organization and see the dynamics of the system including their own role. Then I want to know what their conditions of satisfaction are to borrow an old Fernando Flores term. No matter what happens my objective has to be to satisfying their aims if I can, but it may transpire that once they have stated those aims more clearly that I either have to make a counter proposal or decline respectfully to engage.

If you are part of an existing knowledge management program, which KM approach or component do you think is the most essential to the program's success?  Why?
  Anthropology before technology: always start with an understanding of not only how people currently get their work done changing knowledge into action and outputs, but also what their mental map looks like. ( I did retire from ETS on 01/31/20, but I would have given the same answer if I was asked this question 10 years ago.)

Which KM specialty do you consider to be your main one?  Which one(s) would you like to develop or improve, and why?  
Change or what Nevis, Lancourt, and Vassalo called Intentional Revolutions in their book of the same name.

If only I had improved my capacity for patients, that would have helped. And it's an ever too late...

😉



Peace,
T.J.

“The first thing is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard Feynman



   

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 9:45 AM Douglas Weidner <douglas.weidner@...> wrote:
Hi Stan.

I no longer hold a traditional KM position - was a Chief K Engineer in the early days of KM, but now I head the KM Institute's curriculum development as Chief CKM Instructor.

Over the last 20 yrs., 10,000 students and much research, I've come to fully realize that KM is no longer ad hoc and anecdotal, though many still operate that way.

As to approach - Whether starting a new KM initiative or re-booting a flagging one, I strongly suggest transformational change mgmt vs. the traditional system implementation approaches, which themselves are often overlooked or short changed. 

The traditional people/process/technology venn diagram can be instructive, but we are usually already technology rich (or can buy what we need), and could be process rich as well (if we cared to study the emerging research). But mostly, we are truly ignoring the people component, hence transformational change mgmt. to change not only employee aptitudes (traditional skill training) but maybe even more importantly - attitudes

But attitudes is worthy of a book or more. 

By the way, the KM Institute (KMI) is inaugurating the KMI Press for any budding authors in the KM sphere.

Cheers,
Douglas Weidner.
Founder, Exec Chairman

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 8:29 AM Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:
If you are involved in planning a new knowledge management initiative, which KM approach or component do you think is the most important with which to start?  Why?

If you are part of an existing knowledge management program, which KM approach or component do you think is the most essential to the program's success?  Why?

Which KM specialty do you consider to be your main one?  Which one(s) would you like to develop or improve, and why?

Thanks for your replies!


John Lewis
 

Hi Stan,
Great questions, as usual.
For where to start, I agree with the answers from Tom Short (Knowledge Strategy) and T J Elliott (Intentional Revolutions). KM can help organizations move towards becoming knowledge-driven learning organizations. But most are now data-driven and operate from industrial age prescriptive models. Starting with a knowledge and learning strategy that helps them understand they are already a learning organization (they just have learning disabilities), and operate as an intelligent complex adaptive system, provides a foundation to maximize Knowledge & Innovation Management strategies and technologies. This is partially why I wrote my recent book: “Story Thinking: Transforming Organizations for the Fourth Industrial Revolution” which you are already familiar with.

My main KM specialty which I strive to develop and improve is Learning (individual, team, organizational, and artificial) because I believe if we get this right, the answers to our questions will become knowledge to share and generate the next round of questions, for all the other topics. This is also why I believe that epistemology, not math, is at the top of academic disciplines (but we should save this debate for another day).
All the best,

Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com


Arthur Shelley
 

Good questions Thanks Stan

I don’t believe there is any perfect answer to initiating a KM program. When we all got interested in KM as a management discipline in the mid 1990’s we were mostly focused on “capturing” what we knew so that it:
A) was not lost
B) was able to be recognised and shared more effectively to amplify the value it generated 
Unfortunately this took a turn towards focusing on putting content into digital systems/tools because these were tangible measurable things that management could “see”.

Over the past three decades a lot has changed and the high performing businesses are now more about real time agile learning to cocreate new knowledge during projects. Those that create and apply new knowledge and insights quickest, lead the market. This means the optimal KM program focuses on this cocreation and maximising the flow of knowledge through organisations to accelerate value generation. Whilst we still need a strong foundation of knowledge, the value of this knowledge ages more quickly.

So answering your questions in our current context:
Starting a knowledge initiative is best focused on an immediate opportunity or problem to be resolved and working out what knowledge you have, or need to generate/acquire to resolve that challenge as quickly as possible. Once you solved the first challenge, you have built the behaviours, trust, relationships and skills (perhaps with some enabling tools) within the team to advance to the next one. THE most significant benefit of the project is this increased knowledge, confidence and connection between members of the team. We used to measure the outputs of projects on the tangible outputs they generated (a building, a bridge, an upgraded system, a new piece of machinery that could be sold), however now in the age of agile ecosystems we measure success in the intangible outcomes we generate (capability of the team, knowledge, collaborative culture and how creatively innovative they are). These knowledge assets are the most significant value generator we can make/maintain/develop for future success.
They are produced by doing complex problems together. For more on this see my last book KNOWledge SUCCESSion 

http://www.businessexpertpress.com/books/knowledge-succession-sustained-capability-growth-through-strategic-projects


Which approach depend on the context, the organisation and the capabilities of the people involved. I use a range of approaches drawing on Complexity, Behavioural & Cultural approaches (Organizational Zoo, Human cantered design, Knowledge Asset Management, Design Thinking, Reflective practice, action learning and others) built into an Applied Social Learning Ecosystem to perform Problem based learning.  
See free resource here: 

A speciality is not an easy selection as all modern projects are complex with many interdependent aspects. That said, for almost all knowledge projects/programs the MOST important aspect is human relationships. If you get the relationships right, people share, if the share openly, it builds trust, which drives collaboration and this creates the Applied Social Learning Ecosystem (which is the environment in which the new knowledge is CoCreated and applied to generate value faster than others)... we are back to the beginning for the next cycle of success. If you want more on this cycle watch my “Three Minute Thesis“ here:

I hope this helps answer your questions. No doubt others will have totally different perspectives and this is what makes SIKMLeaders such a valuable resource. We all offer options to share and readers can select from those that best suit their own situation.

Kind regards to all
Dr Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
www.OrganizationalZoo.com
@Metaphorage
+61 413 047 408
https://au.linkedin.com/pub/arthur-shelley/1/4bb/528 

On 22 Feb 2020, at 00:29, Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:

If you are involved in planning a new knowledge management initiative, which KM approach or component do you think is the most important with which to start?  Why?

If you are part of an existing knowledge management program, which KM approach or component do you think is the most essential to the program's success?  Why?

Which KM specialty do you consider to be your main one?  Which one(s) would you like to develop or improve, and why?

Thanks for your replies!


Aprill Allen
 
Edited

Most important: As a consultant, I can't be successful without the sponsorship and support of someone in the executive. Impactful change can't be made without that.
Continuing success: A culture of team knowledge sharing that's upheld by the leadership. The leaders must be walking the walk and re-telling the stories of success that the knowledge program brings about.
Specialty: I focus on workflow and on the Knowledge Centered Service methodology, in particular. I'd like to get more deeply into the new Standard, so that I can marry my board qualifications with KM governance, and bring greater awareness of KM impact to boards. I'd like to be able to do the Standard auditing, but no idea how to go about that. Anyone in Australia know what that process looks like?


Dennis Thomas
 

Love this train of thought!!  I think, however, that it is time that the KM industry takes the concept of KNOWLEDGE from the philosophers, and claims it as an empirical science that anyone can follow to achieve the same or similar result.  The rationale for this is that every man/woman made physical and symbiotic creation that that exists on the face of this earth is based on a simple epistemological formula: KNOWLEDGE = Theory + Data + Information.  Applied theory having greater value for our purposes. 

Theory connects the dots (data and information). It gives data and information its meaning, purpose, and context.  Theory, form my point of view, is the binding element of thought.  Every aspect of a business operation is based on this principle, and can be faithfully modeled short of our innate neurological capabilities. 

Data systems naturally strip away the meaning, purpose and context of knowledge because data systems are developed using first order predicate logic (think Aristotle).  Existing technologies will crash when attempting to model n-dimensional patterns of thought.  They're not design for it.  Logic-based systems require self-consistency and will always seek out the self-consistent answer.  Our rational intelligence always looks for every answer solution.  The result of data systems is that users need to have the knowledge in their brains to understand the data and information stored in data systems, whereas, knowledge systems should enable experienced and novice users to understand and use stored knowledge in real-time (certainly the idea). 

Dennis L Thomas, CEO
IQStrategix, Inc. 


On February 21, 2020 at 2:33:45 PM, John Lewis (johnlewisedd@...) wrote:

Hi Stan,
Great questions, as usual.
For where to start, I agree with the answers from Tom Short (Knowledge Strategy) and T J Elliott (Intentional Revolutions). KM can help organizations move towards becoming knowledge-driven learning organizations. But most are now data-driven and operate from industrial age prescriptive models. Starting with a knowledge and learning strategy that helps them understand they are already a learning organization (they just have learning disabilities), and operate as an intelligent complex adaptive system, provides a foundation to maximize Knowledge & Innovation Management strategies and technologies. This is partially why I wrote my recent book: “Story Thinking: Transforming Organizations for the Fourth Industrial Revolution” which you are already familiar with.

My main KM specialty which I strive to develop and improve is Learning (individual, team, organizational, and artificial) because I believe if we get this right, the answers to our questions will become knowledge to share and generate the next round of questions, for all the other topics. This is also why I believe that epistemology, not math, is at the top of academic disciplines (but we should save this debate for another day).
All the best,

Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com


Richard Vines
 

Hi Dennis and John,

Dennis - I like your perspective very much. I work in a so called "big science" agency. What continues to amaze me in so many areas of work is the intellectual confusion that abounds in so many disciplines. The only additional thought I would add to your diagram is the notion of abductive reasoning (not just inductive and deductive reasoning)  as well. 

Your contribution reminds me of the work of the messaging of the Oden Institute in the US regarding "predictive data science" and in particular the shortcomings of data science for high-consequence decisions. https://www.oden.utexas.edu/research/predictive-data-science/#challenges. A mantra they have is that big data needs big models. 

I quote: Today's high-consequence decisions in engineering, science and medicine need methods based on more than just data analytics. These decisions must incorporate the predictive power, interpretability and domain knowledge of physics-based models. Enter Predictive Data Science.

There is also a quasi humility associated with this in that models (theories) are not the truth but are there to be falsified. Predictive data science also exists in a social ecology. 

John - by implication, I think we need trans-disciplinary approaches that involve epistemology and math (physics and numerics).

I have been involved in a KM initiative in one organisation now for over 9 years.  It might even be a record length of time that it has survived. I have no idea how it has survived (and to be honest I am not fussed at all). All I continue to realise is that the applications of predictive data science as this applies to our natural environment (e.g. landscape-scale predictive modelling) requires a perspective of KM along the lines you suggest Dennis. An example I have explored is big data, big models and water policy challenges as outlined briefly here - an example that in part relates to the Murray Darling Basin here in Australia.  

Bringing this into reality on a cross-institutional basis is no small matter. I think it will be the next generation that might bring this expression of humility to fruition. But bringing philosophy, science and engineering and maths together is a big ask we are leaving for them! I can but wish them all the very best - and there are plenty  of bright young folk around.

Thanks to you both for these insights.


Richard Vines
Melbourne Australia




 

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 2:09 AM Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:
Love this train of thought!!  I think, however, that it is time that the KM industry takes the concept of KNOWLEDGE from the philosophers, and claims it as an empirical science that anyone can follow to achieve the same or similar result.  The rationale for this is that every man/woman made physical and symbiotic creation that that exists on the face of this earth is based on a simple epistemological formula: KNOWLEDGE = Theory + Data + Information.  Applied theory having greater value for our purposes. 

Theory connects the dots (data and information). It gives data and information its meaning, purpose, and context.  Theory, form my point of view, is the binding element of thought.  Every aspect of a business operation is based on this principle, and can be faithfully modeled short of our innate neurological capabilities. 

Data systems naturally strip away the meaning, purpose and context of knowledge because data systems are developed using first order predicate logic (think Aristotle).  Existing technologies will crash when attempting to model n-dimensional patterns of thought.  They're not design for it.  Logic-based systems require self-consistency and will always seek out the self-consistent answer.  Our rational intelligence always looks for every answer solution.  The result of data systems is that users need to have the knowledge in their brains to understand the data and information stored in data systems, whereas, knowledge systems should enable experienced and novice users to understand and use stored knowledge in real-time (certainly the idea). 

Dennis L Thomas, CEO
IQStrategix, Inc. 


On February 21, 2020 at 2:33:45 PM, John Lewis (johnlewisedd@...) wrote:

Hi Stan,
Great questions, as usual.
For where to start, I agree with the answers from Tom Short (Knowledge Strategy) and T J Elliott (Intentional Revolutions). KM can help organizations move towards becoming knowledge-driven learning organizations. But most are now data-driven and operate from industrial age prescriptive models. Starting with a knowledge and learning strategy that helps them understand they are already a learning organization (they just have learning disabilities), and operate as an intelligent complex adaptive system, provides a foundation to maximize Knowledge & Innovation Management strategies and technologies. This is partially why I wrote my recent book: “Story Thinking: Transforming Organizations for the Fourth Industrial Revolution” which you are already familiar with.

My main KM specialty which I strive to develop and improve is Learning (individual, team, organizational, and artificial) because I believe if we get this right, the answers to our questions will become knowledge to share and generate the next round of questions, for all the other topics. This is also why I believe that epistemology, not math, is at the top of academic disciplines (but we should save this debate for another day).
All the best,

Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


John Lewis
 

Dear Richard and Dennis,
This is an important sub-thread which I am enjoying greatly. KM conferences have been filled with voices that say "KM is not just technology," without saying what it is, or by defining it around knowledge sharing, which is basically the domain of communications, which has existed for a long time. I do agree that when described correctly, KM is the operationalization of philosophy's epistemology for examining and sharing what we know and how we know.

Some people confuse the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce’s concept of "abduction" as a third reasoning pattern, but in his book Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, Paul Thagard says that "abduction" is best described as an inference process for the creation of a new hypothesis. After much reading of Peirce, I agree with this. So, since hypothesis generation is a subset of induction, at the top level we are left still with induction and deduction, which are easily recognized visual patterns within story thinking. Rationality, logic, decisions, lessons, and multi-disciplinary approaches still all exist within the sense-making pattern of stories. Storytelling is for describing history. Story Thinking is for defining the future.


Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com


Richard Vines
 

You  may be right John, I fully  accept that may be I have confused Pierce, but I did do quite a bit of thinking about this a number of years ago. 

so ... I think there is counter perspective that suggests abductive reasoning should at least be named as a process that is separate to induction. See Figure 2 of this paper written a number of years ago. I have cut the diagram in here, but it may not get through, so if you have an  interest, you might have to down load the paper and look at Figure 2.

Admittedly, this paper is a bit of a bubble dump, and to be honest, I probably should have done my own PhD regarding this sort of stuff. But for right or for wrong, However, at the time, I  chose not to bury myself in academia and preferred myself a form of reflexivity about my experiences over the years. 

My interest was sparked in the  principles of evolutionary biology and their application to what a few of us called "evolutionary  possibility". 

image.png

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:04 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Dear Richard and Dennis,
This is an important sub-thread which I am enjoying greatly. KM conferences have been filled with voices that say "KM is not just technology," without saying what it is, or by defining it around knowledge sharing, which is basically the domain of communications, which has existed for a long time. I do agree that when described correctly, KM is the operationalization of philosophy's epistemology for examining and sharing what we know and how we know.

Some people confuse the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce’s concept of "abduction" as a third reasoning pattern, but in his book Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, Paul Thagard says that "abduction" is best described as an inference process for the creation of a new hypothesis. After much reading of Peirce, I agree with this. So, since hypothesis generation is a subset of induction, at the top level we are left still with induction and deduction, which are easily recognized visual patterns within story thinking. Rationality, logic, decisions, lessons, and multi-disciplinary approaches still all exist within the sense-making pattern of stories. Storytelling is for describing history. Story Thinking is for defining the future.


Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


John Lewis
 

Sorry Richard,
My use of the term "confused" was not meant for you directly but picking up from Thagard's work in general and the state that the domain of philosophy has left us in, with more confusion instead of clarity. This is why I agree with this thread that perhaps KM should not shy away from the philosophy connections. Kent State University was pursuing a focus in Knowledge Sciences a few years back, which was an exciting advancement, but with changes in leadership this type of dialogue has stopped. Thanks for your continued pursuit with these connections. It would be interesting to see if a commercial (not academic) KM conference would entertain a panel on these ideas.

Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com  


----------------------------
You  may be right John, I fully  accept that may be I have confused Pierce, but I did do quite a bit of thinking about this a number of years ago. 

so ... I think there is counter perspective that suggests abductive reasoning should at least be named as a process that is separate to induction. See Figure 2 of this paper written a number of years ago. I have cut the diagram in here, but it may not get through, so if you have an  interest, you might have to down load the paper and look at Figure 2.

Admittedly, this paper is a bit of a bubble dump, and to be honest, I probably should have done my own PhD regarding this sort of stuff. But for right or for wrong, However, at the time, I  chose not to bury myself in academia and preferred myself a form of reflexivity about my experiences over the years. 

My interest was sparked in the  principles of evolutionary biology and their application to what a few of us called "evolutionary  possibility". 

image.png

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:04 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Dear Richard and Dennis,
This is an important sub-thread which I am enjoying greatly. KM conferences have been filled with voices that say "KM is not just technology," without saying what it is, or by defining it around knowledge sharing, which is basically the domain of communications, which has existed for a long time. I do agree that when described correctly, KM is the operationalization of philosophy's epistemology for examining and sharing what we know and how we know.

Some people confuse the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce’s concept of "abduction" as a third reasoning pattern, but in his book Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, Paul Thagard says that "abduction" is best described as an inference process for the creation of a new hypothesis. After much reading of Peirce, I agree with this. So, since hypothesis generation is a subset of induction, at the top level we are left still with induction and deduction, which are easily recognized visual patterns within story thinking. Rationality, logic, decisions, lessons, and multi-disciplinary approaches still all exist within the sense-making pattern of stories. Storytelling is for describing history. Story Thinking is for defining the future.


Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com




Richard Vines
 

Thank you for this clarification John.

I was interested in this: It would be interesting to see if a commercial (not academic) KM conference would entertain a panel on these ideas. It remains to be seen if the spanning of these worlds can result in pragmatically useful conversations outside a purely academic framework. That would require a bit of open possibility across a few boundaries that in the past have been a bit rigid. In the final analysis, these matters have profound commercial and strategic consequences but these can get lost so easily. 

I participated in a public sector data analytics panel discussion last week -  the organisers were generous to include me ... there is always a sense of .... groan .... when these sorts of matters are related in KM conversations (although I think this sort of contribution to KM here is a really pleasant surprise for me to see. I rarely participate in these sorts of KM fora these days - but i  really liked this summary - the content here has moved on a lot since a few years ago. 

I  noticed these broader perspectives are largely outside the scope of data analytics conversations, but to me this points to the challenges faced by the Information Systems world in general.  

I was quite interested to note that our audience last week seemed to be interested - especially when I equated the importance of understanding physics-based models in terms of understanding the intensity of bushfires in Eastern Australia this year.  There is nothing like a bit of pragmatic reality of bushfires to shake the curiosity cage. 

BTW, my interest in evolutionary possibilities partially emerged from educational specialists at the University of Illinois in the US with knowledge of the  Australian located functional linguistic pioneer - Michael Halliday and the notion of functional grammar. It is this sort of context that made me tobegin to think about the relevance of abductive reasoning. 

Thanks again,


Richard

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:52 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Sorry Richard,
My use of the term "confused" was not meant for you directly but picking up from Thagard's work in general and the state that the domain of philosophy has left us in, with more confusion instead of clarity. This is why I agree with this thread that perhaps KM should not shy away from the philosophy connections. Kent State University was pursuing a focus in Knowledge Sciences a few years back, which was an exciting advancement, but with changes in leadership this type of dialogue has stopped. Thanks for your continued pursuit with these connections. It would be interesting to see if a commercial (not academic) KM conference would entertain a panel on these ideas.

Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com  


----------------------------
You  may be right John, I fully  accept that may be I have confused Pierce, but I did do quite a bit of thinking about this a number of years ago. 

so ... I think there is counter perspective that suggests abductive reasoning should at least be named as a process that is separate to induction. See Figure 2 of this paper written a number of years ago. I have cut the diagram in here, but it may not get through, so if you have an  interest, you might have to down load the paper and look at Figure 2.

Admittedly, this paper is a bit of a bubble dump, and to be honest, I probably should have done my own PhD regarding this sort of stuff. But for right or for wrong, However, at the time, I  chose not to bury myself in academia and preferred myself a form of reflexivity about my experiences over the years. 

My interest was sparked in the  principles of evolutionary biology and their application to what a few of us called "evolutionary  possibility". 

image.png

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:04 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Dear Richard and Dennis,
This is an important sub-thread which I am enjoying greatly. KM conferences have been filled with voices that say "KM is not just technology," without saying what it is, or by defining it around knowledge sharing, which is basically the domain of communications, which has existed for a long time. I do agree that when described correctly, KM is the operationalization of philosophy's epistemology for examining and sharing what we know and how we know.

Some people confuse the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce’s concept of "abduction" as a third reasoning pattern, but in his book Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, Paul Thagard says that "abduction" is best described as an inference process for the creation of a new hypothesis. After much reading of Peirce, I agree with this. So, since hypothesis generation is a subset of induction, at the top level we are left still with induction and deduction, which are easily recognized visual patterns within story thinking. Rationality, logic, decisions, lessons, and multi-disciplinary approaches still all exist within the sense-making pattern of stories. Storytelling is for describing history. Story Thinking is for defining the future.


Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com





--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


T J Elliott
 

So glad to see this addition to the conversation, John. Ironically, I found that the dimension of sensemaking was perhaps the most important and the most resisted aspect of knowledge work in organizations. The importance is almost self-evident as that activity underlies so much of an organization's functions. The resistance came in response to the idea of spending time exposing the orders of control that influence sensemaking because those with the most significant decision making rights often bridle at any exploration that might subject their operations to reflection. After all, time is money and we must always avoid paralysis by analysis. Raising the opposite notions of the learning organization and 'extinction by instinct' is difficult. (See Ann Langley's quarter century old article for a detailed explanation of the latter term: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/between-paralysis-by-analysis-and-extinction-by-instinct/
When we are successful in getting individuals, teams, and even the entire organization to consider how sensemaking occurs, I think that we have done something significant even if it is only preliminary.

Peace,
T.J.

“The first thing is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard Feynman



   


On Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 12:04 AM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Dear Richard and Dennis,
This is an important sub-thread which I am enjoying greatly. KM conferences have been filled with voices that say "KM is not just technology," without saying what it is, or by defining it around knowledge sharing, which is basically the domain of communications, which has existed for a long time. I do agree that when described correctly, KM is the operationalization of philosophy's epistemology for examining and sharing what we know and how we know.

Some people confuse the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce’s concept of "abduction" as a third reasoning pattern, but in his book Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, Paul Thagard says that "abduction" is best described as an inference process for the creation of a new hypothesis. After much reading of Peirce, I agree with this. So, since hypothesis generation is a subset of induction, at the top level we are left still with induction and deduction, which are easily recognized visual patterns within story thinking. Rationality, logic, decisions, lessons, and multi-disciplinary approaches still all exist within the sense-making pattern of stories. Storytelling is for describing history. Story Thinking is for defining the future.


Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com


Dennis Thomas
 

Richard and John,

I can see that I need to check in on this thread more often. This discussion is getting ahead of me.  

First, Richard, I want to thank you for the appreciation you expressed about the drawing I included in my last email. Very encouraging since it has been a challenge explaining new concepts while developing our knowledge technology (IQxCloud), and I find that drawings provide a great starting point.   As an example, I used a diagram to define the scope, goals, objectives, etc. to guide me through the conceptual design phase of IQxCloud, and our amazing programming talent got us to where we are now. 

What is interesting to note about this drawing, from my perspective, is that it also defines human consciousness.  I believe that every concept in our brain has a time signature, and that the concepts that compose “what we know” represents our “mental" state of awareness, which when coupled with our sensory input, our overall state of awareness.  This has been a daunting task. A previous unfinished version of this drawing was created by Richard L. Ballard, Ph.D., a Berkeley physicist, my mentor, with whom I worked with for five solid years. 

On the subject of abductive reasoning, which you both brought up, I think that is a natural and intuitive process.  Our system utilizes an Atomic Concept Architecture which feeds independently delineated concepts into the builder which self-builds webs of concepts and ontologies that strives to faithfully represent organizational knowledge.  As the system identifies what we call “ConRels” (Concept Relationships) it automatically lists these patterns and where they exist within the knowledge store (knowledge base, knowledge ecosystem).  I think of that as inference without requiring lays of software such as RDF and OWL.  It’s a natural process. 

Since knowledge products can be developed on this system using common language, it enables even the least technically capable among us to develop sophisticated products that model common operational knowledge of every kind.  For this reason, I believe that KM practitioners are leaving as much as 70% of their service on the table.   KM has room for change. 

Also, I own the domain name KnowldgeScience.net and I plan on developing a DRUPAL KM ClearingHouse Portal to be completed in the Fall.   I am seeking next level funding right now, but plan on using these technologies to support the KM, T&D/L&D, eLearning, eMentoring, Kaizen, ISO industries.  

Dennis L Thomas, CEO
IQStrategix, Inc.
(810) 662-5199





On February 23, 2020 at 1:22:24 AM, Richard Vines (richardvines1@...) wrote:

Thank you for this clarification John.

I was interested in this: It would be interesting to see if a commercial (not academic) KM conference would entertain a panel on these ideas. It remains to be seen if the spanning of these worlds can result in pragmatically useful conversations outside a purely academic framework. That would require a bit of open possibility across a few boundaries that in the past have been a bit rigid. In the final analysis, these matters have profound commercial and strategic consequences but these can get lost so easily. 

I participated in a public sector data analytics panel discussion last week -  the organisers were generous to include me ... there is always a sense of .... groan .... when these sorts of matters are related in KM conversations (although I think this sort of contribution to KM here is a really pleasant surprise for me to see. I rarely participate in these sorts of KM fora these days - but i  really liked this summary - the content here has moved on a lot since a few years ago. 

I  noticed these broader perspectives are largely outside the scope of data analytics conversations, but to me this points to the challenges faced by the Information Systems world in general.  

I was quite interested to note that our audience last week seemed to be interested - especially when I equated the importance of understanding physics-based models in terms of understanding the intensity of bushfires in Eastern Australia this year.  There is nothing like a bit of pragmatic reality of bushfires to shake the curiosity cage. 

BTW, my interest in evolutionary possibilities partially emerged from educational specialists at the University of Illinois in the US with knowledge of the  Australian located functional linguistic pioneer - Michael Halliday and the notion of functional grammar. It is this sort of context that made me tobegin to think about the relevance of abductive reasoning. 

Thanks again,


Richard

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:52 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Sorry Richard,
My use of the term "confused" was not meant for you directly but picking up from Thagard's work in general and the state that the domain of philosophy has left us in, with more confusion instead of clarity. This is why I agree with this thread that perhaps KM should not shy away from the philosophy connections. Kent State University was pursuing a focus in Knowledge Sciences a few years back, which was an exciting advancement, but with changes in leadership this type of dialogue has stopped. Thanks for your continued pursuit with these connections. It would be interesting to see if a commercial (not academic) KM conference would entertain a panel on these ideas.

Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com  


----------------------------
You  may be right John, I fully  accept that may be I have confused Pierce, but I did do quite a bit of thinking about this a number of years ago. 

so ... I think there is counter perspective that suggests abductive reasoning should at least be named as a process that is separate to induction. See Figure 2 of this paper written a number of years ago. I have cut the diagram in here, but it may not get through, so if you have an  interest, you might have to down load the paper and look at Figure 2.

Admittedly, this paper is a bit of a bubble dump, and to be honest, I probably should have done my own PhD regarding this sort of stuff. But for right or for wrong, However, at the time, I  chose not to bury myself in academia and preferred myself a form of reflexivity about my experiences over the years. 

My interest was sparked in the  principles of evolutionary biology and their application to what a few of us called "evolutionary  possibility". 

image.png

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:04 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Dear Richard and Dennis,
This is an important sub-thread which I am enjoying greatly. KM conferences have been filled with voices that say "KM is not just technology," without saying what it is, or by defining it around knowledge sharing, which is basically the domain of communications, which has existed for a long time. I do agree that when described correctly, KM is the operationalization of philosophy's epistemology for examining and sharing what we know and how we know.

Some people confuse the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce’s concept of "abduction" as a third reasoning pattern, but in his book Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, Paul Thagard says that "abduction" is best described as an inference process for the creation of a new hypothesis. After much reading of Peirce, I agree with this. So, since hypothesis generation is a subset of induction, at the top level we are left still with induction and deduction, which are easily recognized visual patterns within story thinking. Rationality, logic, decisions, lessons, and multi-disciplinary approaches still all exist within the sense-making pattern of stories. Storytelling is for describing history. Story Thinking is for defining the future.


Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com





--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Dennis Thomas
 

Richard,

I am using the phrase “Aggregation Hierarchy” simply as a descriptor for the physical categories as noted in the diagram.  A more ambitious person (academically oriented) might want to define this hierarchy from an atomic perspective, not sure?  I am a technologist driven by a practical need to bring a meaningful knowledge technology to market.  On that note, all development has been under the radar.  The plan is to bring a robust version of IQxCloud to market in the Fall. I am only communicating now to get a better feel for the market. 

Your assessment of the rational nature of the content as shown in the diagram is accurate.  This graphic is aided in understanding of the first graphic I sent you.  (DNA, Brains, Rational thinking, Logic-based thinking.)  At its deepest level, this technology is language independent.  We only use language so that people can interface with the technology.  

Otherwise, there is a reality called the LINGUISTIC-SEMANTIC GAP.  From our perspective, words are only descriptive.  We all know that the word “spring” for example has as many as 11-22 meanings.  So, how can a technology solve the heterogeneity problem?  Our group regards W3C Semantic Standard and Conceptual Graphs as descriptive technologies, not semantic technologies.  

(up to 70% issue)
Now, the old saying is, “where there is confusion, there is opportunity.”  The KM commercial, government, academia, non-profit world is rift with confusion and opportunity.  The reason is that the KM industry has not really defined what knowledge is and sold that to the CEOs (lack of leadership), and they have not had a technology that puts them into a position of strength.  As a result, as a knee jerk reaction, they pass the knowledge technology problem off to IT departments, hence giving away most of their strength because they could be delivering a turnkey solution if they had a powerful knowledge technology.  I don’t really blame them for this.  I would probably do the same.  But I do think that the IT department is the last group of people to be in charge of knowledge technologies.  After all, they think of knowledge as data and information and knowledge technologies as document search engines.  Holy computer systems Batman, what about the people?

The other part of that equation is that IT pushes AI, ML, text and speech analytics, Big Data, etc. and the CEO who run companies don’t know any better and their CTOs and CIOs are eager to try something new.  There is no bigger thrill than the cutting-edge when someone else is paying the bill.  The fact is that, according to Forbes, the  AI failure rate is 65%.  That is being gratuitous.  Those who are in the trenches know that the failure rate of these advanced technologies are more like 85%.   Lots of reasons for this.  

So, CEO don’t know.  CTOs like the sizzle of cutting-edge tech.  KMer’s don’t have KM technology.  As a result, they are leaving up to 70% of what they could deliver on the table.   Of course, we want to help solve that problem.  I hope that doesn’t sound like a rant? 

Finally, yes, evolutionary biology is a great teacher.  Without explanation, what follows is another diagram that addresses this very issue. "We stand on the shoulders of giants.”  In the future, machines will do what we are doing, only much better, and I see the KM community leading the way.   


On February 23, 2020 at 3:09:58 PM, Richard Vines (richardvines1@...) wrote:

Dennis,
This type of reflexivity which I can see has built up over many years is incredibly interesting and admirable. I am not sure what you mean by aggregation hierarchy.

I would assume that what you imply from the use of the term "time states", that there is a continuous and reflexive process between the left and the right-hand sides of the diagram mediated by semiotics. What to me is important is that these processes are underpinned by relational perspectives of life. Indeed the very nature of life itself is relational and is at the source of why these relational states exist in the first place. I  assume this is what you imply when using terms such as "association, resemblance or convention". This reflects a relational perspective and from my perspective this is where the importance of linguistics lies. And why  I have always been attracted to notions of evolutionary biology as a contributory lens for interpreting our knowledge worlds in work. 

Berkley is a hugely admirable source of reflexive enquiry and innovative disruption. 

Only if you have a chance, I would be interested if you could elaborate on why you think KMers leave 70% of their service offer on the table and on what basis. How is it these perspectives make a practical difference in service design and delivery?

Richard 



On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:57 AM D L Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:
Richard and John,

I can see that I need to check in on this thread more often. This discussion is getting ahead of me.  

First, Richard, I want to thank you for the appreciation you expressed about the drawing I included in my last email. Very encouraging since it has been a challenge explaining new concepts while developing our knowledge technology (IQxCloud), and I find that drawings provide a great starting point.   As an example, I used a diagram to define the scope, goals, objectives, etc. to guide me through the conceptual design phase of IQxCloud, and our amazing programming talent got us to where we are now. 

What is interesting to note about this drawing, from my perspective, is that it also defines human consciousness.  I believe that every concept in our brain has a time signature, and that the concepts that compose “what we know” represents our “mental" state of awareness, which when coupled with our sensory input, our overall state of awareness.  This has been a daunting task. A previous unfinished version of this drawing was created by Richard L. Ballard, Ph.D., a Berkeley physicist, my mentor, with whom I worked with for five solid years. 

On the subject of abductive reasoning, which you both brought up, I think that is a natural and intuitive process.  Our system utilizes an Atomic Concept Architecture which feeds independently delineated concepts into the builder which self-builds webs of concepts and ontologies that strives to faithfully represent organizational knowledge.  As the system identifies what we call “ConRels” (Concept Relationships) it automatically lists these patterns and where they exist within the knowledge store (knowledge base, knowledge ecosystem).  I think of that as inference without requiring lays of software such as RDF and OWL.  It’s a natural process. 

Since knowledge products can be developed on this system using common language, it enables even the least technically capable among us to develop sophisticated products that model common operational knowledge of every kind.  For this reason, I believe that KM practitioners are leaving as much as 70% of their service on the table.   KM has room for change. 

Also, I own the domain name KnowldgeScience.net and I plan on developing a DRUPAL KM ClearingHouse Portal to be completed in the Fall.   I am seeking next level funding right now, but plan on using these technologies to support the KM, T&D/L&D, eLearning, eMentoring, Kaizen, ISO industries.  

Dennis L Thomas, CEO
IQStrategix, Inc.
(810) 662-5199





On February 23, 2020 at 1:22:24 AM, Richard Vines (richardvines1@...) wrote:

Thank you for this clarification John.

I was interested in this: It would be interesting to see if a commercial (not academic) KM conference would entertain a panel on these ideas. It remains to be seen if the spanning of these worlds can result in pragmatically useful conversations outside a purely academic framework. That would require a bit of open possibility across a few boundaries that in the past have been a bit rigid. In the final analysis, these matters have profound commercial and strategic consequences but these can get lost so easily. 

I participated in a public sector data analytics panel discussion last week -  the organisers were generous to include me ... there is always a sense of .... groan .... when these sorts of matters are related in KM conversations (although I think this sort of contribution to KM here is a really pleasant surprise for me to see. I rarely participate in these sorts of KM fora these days - but i  really liked this summary - the content here has moved on a lot since a few years ago. 

I  noticed these broader perspectives are largely outside the scope of data analytics conversations, but to me this points to the challenges faced by the Information Systems world in general.  

I was quite interested to note that our audience last week seemed to be interested - especially when I equated the importance of understanding physics-based models in terms of understanding the intensity of bushfires in Eastern Australia this year.  There is nothing like a bit of pragmatic reality of bushfires to shake the curiosity cage. 

BTW, my interest in evolutionary possibilities partially emerged from educational specialists at the University of Illinois in the US with knowledge of the  Australian located functional linguistic pioneer - Michael Halliday and the notion of functional grammar. It is this sort of context that made me tobegin to think about the relevance of abductive reasoning. 

Thanks again,


Richard

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:52 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Sorry Richard,
My use of the term "confused" was not meant for you directly but picking up from Thagard's work in general and the state that the domain of philosophy has left us in, with more confusion instead of clarity. This is why I agree with this thread that perhaps KM should not shy away from the philosophy connections. Kent State University was pursuing a focus in Knowledge Sciences a few years back, which was an exciting advancement, but with changes in leadership this type of dialogue has stopped. Thanks for your continued pursuit with these connections. It would be interesting to see if a commercial (not academic) KM conference would entertain a panel on these ideas.

Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com  


----------------------------
You  may be right John, I fully  accept that may be I have confused Pierce, but I did do quite a bit of thinking about this a number of years ago. 

so ... I think there is counter perspective that suggests abductive reasoning should at least be named as a process that is separate to induction. See Figure 2 of this paper written a number of years ago. I have cut the diagram in here, but it may not get through, so if you have an  interest, you might have to down load the paper and look at Figure 2.

Admittedly, this paper is a bit of a bubble dump, and to be honest, I probably should have done my own PhD regarding this sort of stuff. But for right or for wrong, However, at the time, I  chose not to bury myself in academia and preferred myself a form of reflexivity about my experiences over the years. 

My interest was sparked in the  principles of evolutionary biology and their application to what a few of us called "evolutionary  possibility". 

image.png

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:04 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Dear Richard and Dennis,
This is an important sub-thread which I am enjoying greatly. KM conferences have been filled with voices that say "KM is not just technology," without saying what it is, or by defining it around knowledge sharing, which is basically the domain of communications, which has existed for a long time. I do agree that when described correctly, KM is the operationalization of philosophy's epistemology for examining and sharing what we know and how we know.

Some people confuse the American philosopher Charles S. Peirce’s concept of "abduction" as a third reasoning pattern, but in his book Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, Paul Thagard says that "abduction" is best described as an inference process for the creation of a new hypothesis. After much reading of Peirce, I agree with this. So, since hypothesis generation is a subset of induction, at the top level we are left still with induction and deduction, which are easily recognized visual patterns within story thinking. Rationality, logic, decisions, lessons, and multi-disciplinary approaches still all exist within the sense-making pattern of stories. Storytelling is for describing history. Story Thinking is for defining the future.


Dr. John Lewis Ed.D.
Explanation Age LLC
Author of “The Explanation Age” and “Story Thinking”
www.ExplanationAge.com





--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Stan Garfield
 

Thanks to all who have responded to this thread so far.  To those who have not yet replied, especially those members who have never posted or replied before, there are no right or wrong answers.

If you are involved in planning, implementing, or participating in a knowledge management effort, I welcome your answers to these questions:
  1. Which KM approach or component do you think is the most important with which to start your program?
  2. Which KM approach or component do you think is the most essential to your program's success?
  3. Which KM specialty do you consider to be your main one?  Which one(s) would you like to develop or improve?
My intent in asking these questions again is to continue the conversation, including a wide variety of our members.


Jasper Lavertu
 

Ok, I'll join the conversation. Thanks Stan, for starting this and the others for sharing your knowledge.

I am a practitioner at a shipbuilding company and I am the first who is focusing on knowledge management full time within our company. If I only knew Stan’s LinkedIn articles and be part of this community when I started this position… well, that would have been very helpful.

So, definitely, the most important thing to start with is to see what’s already been done and learned by others!


And, yes, a KM strategy is paramount. I believe a combination of a top-down and bottom-up approach is a good one. Top-down to ensure KM contributes to organizational strategy and to engage senior management and realize buy-in. Bottom-up to know what is needed, to do the right things and to create a support base among the knowledge workers.

In addition to strategizing KM, it should be made very clear throughout the organization what the definitions are of knowledge and knowledge management, so everyone is talking the same language.


Culture is, without doubt, an enabler (or barrier), but, in my experience, the word ‘culture’ has a negative connotation. When it is used by a manager you almost see people rolling with their eyeballs, it’s something that managers say but in the end, nothing much happens, or the wrong things happen - at least from the knowledge workers perspective. I think that talking with the knowledge workers is key. Start the discussion together and raise awareness step-by-step, explain what it is you are trying to achieve and show the benefits once you have some results (also the small ones), appreciate knowledge sharing efforts, and so on. We developed a KM maturity model and this tool really helps us to start the KM talk (so this is also a good one to start with).


A more practical KM initiative which we found very helpful is to make the knowledge (domains and level) that is needed to do our business explicit. Additionally, we have assessed the currently available knowledge and these insights serve as a basis for other KM activities. We now know on which knowledge domains to focus on and if we have a certain gap (or possible risk) we can define appropriate actions like setting up a community to develop and share knowledge or have an expert mentoring less experienced employees, or… another activity.


Specialties that I believe are important (and that I want to develop continuously) are stakeholder management, empathy, and listening.


I have many other lessons, tips, and stories to share, but that’s probably for another time.

Jasper Lavertu

 

Knowledge Management Specialist, Knowledge & Innovation
Feadship Royal Dutch Shipyards